I don't think DRM is going to go away. I think there's going to be a split, or perhaps a different approach to DRM. Instead of trying to control what we see and how to use it, I think DRM might turn into more of a protection system, sort of like XP's DRM whereas if the OS isn't validated with Microsoft's servers, you won't get updates to it.

Personally, that's the outcome I'd like to see. I'm not for DRM, but I can see legitimate uses despite consumers getting upset about it. In fact, the only time DRM seems to really be a nuisance is when pirates start to get involved. For everyone else, its just a minor annoyance (just like the article I posted stated).

Agreed. However, it seems that comsumers are caught between IT manufacturers & Hollywood!

HTPC's, streaming media etc, all supposed to operate from one device(server?) to anywhere in the home - But to do that, one has to put the media onto that device, which in itself breaks the copyright laws.

I see that Hollywood is beginning to understand this fact by providing a digitial copy as well on some disks - Took their time in doing so!

Actually, by my understanding of the DMCA, it is perfectly legal for you to make an infinite number of copies of copywritten materials, provided they are just backups for yourself, and you do not distribute them nor make any kind of profit at all.

So taking a music CD and ripping it to mp3 and putting it on your computer, then putting the CD back safely in its case and never touching it again is perfectly acceptable. Loading the mp3's on your own mp3 player so you can take it anywhere with you, is perfectly acceptable.

It's all about what is done with the digitized copies. And also, if my memory serves me right, with things like movies, you can share it, but only if it's a viewing or a stream up to 30 people, because they are not obtaining their own copy, and you can't have any cash flow for it, either.


Note: I could be wrong, but the above is what I have gathered over the years from interpretations and explanations of the copywrite laws and the legality of digital copies. It is entirely possible that either the information is outdated, or was false to begin with, but this is what I believe to be true...at least here in the US.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

One other thought on this, DRM might be made a little more palitable to consumers if mfgs would be required to replace, at no charge other than maybe .75 shipping, any disk that was no longer readable, for whatever reason. This would take care of the issue of not being able to make backup copies of them in case something went wrong. Don't ever see that happening, but it would remove one issue legitimate users like myself have about it.

---

One other thought on this, DRM might be made a little more palitable to consumers if mfgs would be required to replace, at no charge other than maybe .75 shipping, any disk that was no longer readable, for whatever reason. This would take care of the issue of not being able to make backup copies of them in case something went wrong. Don't ever see that happening, but it would remove one issue legitimate users like myself have about it.

I'll agree with that. Before I figured out the whole disk image and virtual CD-ROM setup, a few of my game CDs were getting pretty beat up. I ended up having to buy another copy (at least it was only US$15 when I did that) so that I could be able to install the game again after the 6-to-12 month OS reinstall cycle. If they require the CD/DVD to be in the drive to play the game, that means that most typically, it will get scratched/damaged from constantly being handled. Virtual drives are very nice on that regard, though some of the developers are getting smart and have virtual device detection, and just simply will not run if it detects that hardware..even if you're using a real, physical disk.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Actually, by my understanding of the DMCA, it is perfectly legal for you to make an infinite number of copies of copywritten materials, provided they are just backups for yourself, and you do not distribute them nor make any kind of profit at all.

So taking a music CD and ripping it to mp3 and putting it on your computer, then putting the CD back safely in its case and never touching it again is perfectly acceptable. Loading the mp3's on your own mp3 player so you can take it anywhere with you, is perfectly acceptable.

I don't think that's the DMCA, but the Fair Use Act. The problem is that the Fair Use Act does not explicitly allow making backups for your own personal use. In fact, the only exemptions is for libraries and archives (not everyone who backs up their own stuff is considered an "archive").

Please see www.Copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html for more information on copyright law.

It's all about what is done with the digitized copies. And also, if my memory serves me right, with things like movies, you can share it, but only if it's a viewing or a stream up to 30 people, because they are not obtaining their own copy, and you can't have any cash flow for it, either.

Not entirely accurate. The only provisions for showing a movie is during courtroom proceedings, school lessons/lectures, scholarship, research, criticism, comment and news reporting (and in half those cases, only clips are allowed to be shown). The link above has all the info and more.


Saying that (and I believe I stated this before), I would like to see a fair use for consumers section added because I, too, have older CD-ROM titles/audio CDs that I would like to preserve for my own future use and I do not feel that I should have to re-purchase something that I already paid cash for previously.

---

Thanks for clearing that up. Like I said, that was my interpretation of things I heard/gathered over the years. Didn't know the degree of validity to what I thought.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

It's all about what is done with the digitized copies. And also, if my memory serves me right, with things like movies, you can share it, but only if it's a viewing or a stream up to 30 people, because they are not obtaining their own copy, and you can't have any cash flow for it, either.

IANAL, and I don't play one on TV. This is for entertainment only and does not constitute legal advice.

The key here is "copies" and it isn't the DMCA as much as it is copyright law. The WIPO treaty is in many ways broader in its' protections.

For example, the WIPO treaty allows unpublished work to be copyrighted, while U.S. Law required one copy to be sold for the copyright to be valid and enforceable.

Most of the U.S. Copyright law became obsolete when the U.S. ratified the WIPO treaty.

The essential part of copyright is that it is the right to make copies. The whole idea is that if you create some work, you have the sole rights to make (and sell) copies. You can extend that right to me (usually in exchange for some consideration -- like royalties or cash) but I can't create new copies without your permission.

I can't make a copy of your work and give it away.

The first sale doctrine says that once I buy a copy from you, I can loan that physical copy to someone else, or I can sell it, or do anything with it as long as I don't make another copy.

For movies and music, exhibition is not covered by copyright, it is usually covered by licensing. That's why most DVDs say "licensed for home use only, not for public exhibition."

Violating the license is a matter of law, but it is not a matter of copyright law.

"Fair use" covers things like clips shown as part of a review, and parody (Mel Brooks didn't have to pay George Lucas when he spoofed Star Wars).

---